|
|
Post by commond on Jun 26, 2024 4:57:16 GMT -5
So, I've been reading some of Kirby's Challengers of the Unknown stories and while there are obvious similarities with The Fantastic Four, especially the origin story in FF #1, there seems to be a major difference besides the fact that Challengers wasn't a superhero comic. There is very little characterization in Challengers of the Unknown. You could swap the word balloons with any of the characters and it wouldn't make a difference. The only way to tell them apart at times is their hair color, and they all act the same. There are very few auxiliary characters and their presence is largely superficial. I've noticed these things in other Kirby books like his run on The Losers. I find it hard to believe that Jack came up with the characterization of the Fantastic Four without any input from others. It doesn't mesh with what he was doing on Challengers. I'm not even 100% sure that Jack liked the way the FF were characterized through Stan's dialogue given how often it was shoehorned in or contradicted what Kirby had drawn on the page. I would love to know who came up with The Thing. As I've said before, I consider him one of the great characters of the Silver Age and his tragic story is the kind of thing that made Marvel stories different. There is a ton of Jack in there, for sure, with the cigars, the Yancy Street Boys, and everything, but the pathos and tragedy, was that more Jack or Stan? I once read a fantastic article (pun intended) about how their different world views shaped the contrasting ways in how they told the FF stories.
Another thing that stood out to me about these Challengers comics is that for all the talk about Stan not giving Jack enough credit, there is literally ZERO credit for Jack on these stories. If I were a kid buying comics in the late 50s for the first time, I'd have no idea who Jack Kirby was. No matter how cynical people get about the credit Stan gave Jack in the credits, captions, letter pages and Bullpen Bulletins, at least comic book readers knew who Jack was.
FWIW, the stories are okay. I early Showcase stories aren't very good, though I liked the one about the vials that created different monsters. The backup story where the Challengers suddenly become pets for a boy alien was derivative but enjoyable. Kirby's art doesn't really look like the Kirby I'm familiar with except in flashes, but it's fine. There's some confusion over who wrote the stories. The splash pages are very Kirby-esque n terms of the dialogue above the story title. I don't really see Stan swiping from this. I feel like he was more inclined to swipe from Arnold Drake than Challengers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jun 26, 2024 6:31:20 GMT -5
So, I've been reading some of Kirby's Challengers of the Unknown stories and while there are obvious similarities with The Fantastic Four, especially the origin story in FF #1, there seems to be a major difference besides the fact that Challengers wasn't a superhero comic. There is very little characterization in Challengers of the Unknown. You could swap the word balloons with any of the characters and it wouldn't make a difference. The only way to tell them apart at times is their hair color, and they all act the same. There are very few auxiliary characters and their presence is largely superficial. I've noticed these things in other Kirby books like his run on The Losers. I find it hard to believe that Jack came up with the characterization of the Fantastic Four without any input from others. It doesn't mesh with what he was doing on Challengers. I'm not even 100% sure that Jack liked the way the FF were characterized through Stan's dialogue given how often it was shoehorned in or contradicted what Kirby had drawn on the page. I would love to know who came up with The Thing. As I've said before, I consider him one of the great characters of the Silver Age and his tragic story is the kind of thing that made Marvel stories different. There is a ton of Jack in there, for sure, with the cigars, the Yancy Street Boys, and everything, but the pathos and tragedy, was that more Jack or Stan? I once read a fantastic article (pun intended) about how their different world views shaped the contrasting ways in how they told the FF stories. Another thing that stood out to me about these Challengers comics is that for all the talk about Stan not giving Jack enough credit, there is literally ZERO credit for Jack on these stories. If I were a kid buying comics in the late 50s for the first time, I'd have no idea who Jack Kirby was. No matter how cynical people get about the credit Stan gave Jack in the credits, captions, letter pages and Bullpen Bulletins, at least comic book readers knew who Jack was. FWIW, the stories are okay. I early Showcase stories aren't very good, though I liked the one about the vials that created different monsters. The backup story where the Challengers suddenly become pets for a boy alien was derivative but enjoyable. Kirby's art doesn't really look like the Kirby I'm familiar with except in flashes, but it's fine. There's some confusion over who wrote the stories. The splash pages are very Kirby-esque n terms of the dialogue above the story title. I don't really see Stan swiping from this. I feel like he was more inclined to swipe from Arnold Drake than Challengers. You could do that for any DC comic before around 1977. Sorry people, I'm of the opinion that Kirby needed help with dialogue. |
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jun 26, 2024 6:32:39 GMT -5
When people say the FF was based on the Challengers (including Roy Thomas), they mean the original concept of four adventurers having a big accident and forming a team. The similarities of the origins are too close to be ignored. It was not that they went back to the COTU and copied stories. The early FF were more driven by the monster stories Kirby was doing right before that.
As for the Thing, beyond how much his background resembled Kirby's own, and that he was named after Kirby's grandfather, you would have to read the margin notes Kirby wrote to Stan to tell him what the characters were saying.
If you don't think Kirby wrote pathos, I can't help.
|
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jun 26, 2024 6:34:24 GMT -5
You could do that for any DC comic before around 1977. Sorry people, I'm of the opinion that Kirby needed help with dialogue. A lot of times, Stan did too. |
|
|
|
Post by commond on Jun 26, 2024 7:13:00 GMT -5
When people say the FF was based on the Challengers (including Roy Thomas), they mean the original concept of four adventurers having a big accident and forming a team. The similarities of the origins are too close to be ignored. It was not that they went back to the COTU and copied stories. The early FF were more driven by the monster stories Kirby was doing right before that. As for the Thing, beyond how much his background resembled Kirby's own, and that he was named after Kirby's grandfather, you would have to read the margin notes Kirby wrote to Stan to tell him what the characters were saying. If you don't think Kirby wrote pathos, I can't help. But if only the origin story of the Fantastic Four is such a big deal in terms of Jack using previous material to create a new story why does any previous work matter? You can literally look at all of the Marvel Silver Age titles and declare there are no new ideas. I have no doubts that Kirby used his COTU ideas plus his monster stories ideas to create the origin of the Fantastic Four, but I was specially asking about the characterizations and where they originated from. The only member of the Fantastic Four that resembles anyone in the Challengers is Reed Richards unless you think a woman having blonde hair makes her the equivalent of Sue Storm. The margin notes are interesting. Sometimes they're the sole reason that an issue of the Fantastic Four was ever scripted at all and sometimes they're ignored completely and the reason why Stan couldn't follow the ideas that Jack was plotting. If you could provide examples of where Kirby plotted pathos before 1961, or indeed wrote anything himself prior to 1961, it would be more than helpful. |
|
|
|
Post by commond on Jun 26, 2024 7:17:07 GMT -5
So, I've been reading some of Kirby's Challengers of the Unknown stories and while there are obvious similarities with The Fantastic Four, especially the origin story in FF #1, there seems to be a major difference besides the fact that Challengers wasn't a superhero comic. There is very little characterization in Challengers of the Unknown. You could swap the word balloons with any of the characters and it wouldn't make a difference. The only way to tell them apart at times is their hair color, and they all act the same. There are very few auxiliary characters and their presence is largely superficial. I've noticed these things in other Kirby books like his run on The Losers. I find it hard to believe that Jack came up with the characterization of the Fantastic Four without any input from others. It doesn't mesh with what he was doing on Challengers. I'm not even 100% sure that Jack liked the way the FF were characterized through Stan's dialogue given how often it was shoehorned in or contradicted what Kirby had drawn on the page. I would love to know who came up with The Thing. As I've said before, I consider him one of the great characters of the Silver Age and his tragic story is the kind of thing that made Marvel stories different. There is a ton of Jack in there, for sure, with the cigars, the Yancy Street Boys, and everything, but the pathos and tragedy, was that more Jack or Stan? I once read a fantastic article (pun intended) about how their different world views shaped the contrasting ways in how they told the FF stories. Another thing that stood out to me about these Challengers comics is that for all the talk about Stan not giving Jack enough credit, there is literally ZERO credit for Jack on these stories. If I were a kid buying comics in the late 50s for the first time, I'd have no idea who Jack Kirby was. No matter how cynical people get about the credit Stan gave Jack in the credits, captions, letter pages and Bullpen Bulletins, at least comic book readers knew who Jack was. FWIW, the stories are okay. I early Showcase stories aren't very good, though I liked the one about the vials that created different monsters. The backup story where the Challengers suddenly become pets for a boy alien was derivative but enjoyable. Kirby's art doesn't really look like the Kirby I'm familiar with except in flashes, but it's fine. There's some confusion over who wrote the stories. The splash pages are very Kirby-esque n terms of the dialogue above the story title. I don't really see Stan swiping from this. I feel like he was more inclined to swipe from Arnold Drake than Challengers. You could do that for any DC comic before around 1977. Sorry people, I'm of the opinion that Kirby needed help with dialogue. I don't think Kirby dialogued the Challengers stories despite him saying at various points that he did everything by himself. The only part of the stories that sounds Kirby-like are the intros above the splash page titles. The rest is fairly generic. Later on, when he left Marvel and was doing the dialogue himself on the DC books, he wasn't shy about emulating Stan's style when it suited him. |
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jun 26, 2024 7:25:45 GMT -5
When people say the FF was based on the Challengers (including Roy Thomas), they mean the original concept of four adventurers having a big accident and forming a team. The similarities of the origins are too close to be ignored. It was not that they went back to the COTU and copied stories. The early FF were more driven by the monster stories Kirby was doing right before that. As for the Thing, beyond how much his background resembled Kirby's own, and that he was named after Kirby's grandfather, you would have to read the margin notes Kirby wrote to Stan to tell him what the characters were saying. If you don't think Kirby wrote pathos, I can't help. But if only the origin story of the Fantastic Four is such a big deal in terms of Jack using previous material to create a new story why does any previous work matter? You can literally look at all of the Marvel Silver Age titles and declare there are no new ideas. I have no doubts that Kirby used his COTU ideas plus his monster stories ideas to create the origin of the Fantastic Four, but I was specially asking about the characterizations and where they originated from. The only member of the Fantastic Four that resembles anyone in the Challengers is Reed Richards unless you think a woman having blonde hair makes her the equivalent of Sue Storm. The margin notes are interesting. Sometimes they're the sole reason that an issue of the Fantastic Four was ever scripted at all and sometimes they're ignored completely and the reason why Stan couldn't follow the ideas that Jack was plotting. If you could provide examples of where Kirby plotted pathos before 1961, or indeed wrote anything himself prior to 1961, it would be more than helpful. I think Challengers often comes up in terms of who had the original idea for the FF. Its like showing Superman lead to Captain Marvel. The characterization is another discussion. Even I (who supposedly says Stan did nothing) agree that his dialog was a big component in that. Though with Kirby plotting, often without input from Stan, saying Kirby had no hand in it is nonsense as well. As for Kirby's pathos. Mother Delilah from Boys Ranch comes to mind. |
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jun 26, 2024 8:37:13 GMT -5
I don't feel like I've read enough Ditko to have a huge opinion of him... his Dr. Strange stuff is certainly unique and trippy, but I definitely like Romita's Spidey better. I'm not sure I've read anything else by him... I know he did some things but none of them every really grabbed my attention. I would say though that I feel like the character and personality of Spider-Man (which I would consider being more established by Lee's scripts than anything else) and his supporting cast had more to do with the popularity than the art and design.. unlike FF, where I think the sci fi concepts and plots were more of the attraction (and more influenced by the artist). Ditko wrote and drew his last 20 issues of Spider-Man without talking to Stan. Yet you think all the characters and personality were mostly Stan writing dialog to stories he sees for the first time after they are completed is primarily responsible? An instance of who was doing the characterization. Stan told Steve that they were getting letters that people hated J J Jameson and he was too mean to Peter. He wanted him toned down and more likable. Ditko argued that those reactions meant the readers were engaged emotionally with the charater and JJJ should stay as he was. So was it mainly Stan's dialog? |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Jun 26, 2024 9:19:39 GMT -5
You could do that for any DC comic before around 1977. Sorry people, I'm of the opinion that Kirby needed help with dialogue. I don't think Kirby dialogued the Challengers stories despite him saying at various points that he did everything by himself. The only part of the stories that sounds Kirby-like are the intros above the splash page titles. The rest is fairly generic. Later on, when he left Marvel and was doing the dialogue himself on the DC books, he wasn't shy about emulating Stan's style when it suited him.
I think it's clear that Kirby learned a lot from his years with Stan and that his own later solo work wouldn't have been the same or perhaps wouldn't have happened at all if he hadn't spent those years collaborating with Stan in the 60s. Where I think Kirby-sceptics go wrong is concluding from this that Kirby's solo work was a failed attempt to recreate what he and Stan Lee had done together on series like the FF and Thor. There are a few isolated scenes and bits where you can see he really was trying - and failing - to imitate Stan's style - and they stand out like a sore thumb. But those moments are few and far between and shouldn't mislead readers to think everything else must also have been a failed attempt to reproduce his work with Stan.
I think the most important thing he learned from those years was the same thing everyone else did, most notably for us comics readers the next generation of American comics creators: that it was possible to create meaningful, personal work in superhero comics, to tell stories that meant something, that said something, that weren't just endless repetitions of Superman being superior or Batman outsmarting the Riddler or beating up muggers.
|
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jun 26, 2024 9:43:56 GMT -5
The myth that there were no comics with characterization, or meaningful stories before Marvel is hard to remove from the zeitgeist. There were. And as opposed to what Stan wrote in Origins, there is ample evidence that the early Silver Age books were not personal and he was still embarrassed to be in comics.
Also, learning from Stan. Romita, Lee and others said Kirby did not read the printed comics, few of the creators in the 60s did. So where did Kirby get all that great Stan dialog to learn from. And if Kirby didn't read the books after he turned in the pencils with his dialog margin notes. How did he keep the characters and plotting consistent when he was plotting himself. Are we to think a suggested idea or asking for a particular villain was enough to make the characters what they were.
If Stan was the driving force for the FF that Kirby tried to copy in the New Gods, where did he get all this from without reading the finished books.
Or was it Kirby growing and plotting a book for so long (unprecedented for most artists) that let him grow in how he did books that resulted in the Fourth World?
|
|
|
|
Post by Batflunkie on Jun 26, 2024 11:48:16 GMT -5
Stan kept the brand alive. Stan would've never had a brand to keep alive if not for Kirby. I often wonder what Timely would have been like if Kirby hadn't decided to come back and try to steer a sinking ship. Comics (or at least the long-underwear variety) might have ceased to exist |
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jun 26, 2024 12:16:07 GMT -5
Stan would've never had a brand to keep alive if not for Kirby. I often wonder what Timely would have been like if Kirby hadn't decided to come back and try to steer a sinking ship. Comics (or at least the long-underwear variety) might have ceased to exist DC would have continued with it's best sellers, Marvel might never have done them. Contrary to what Stan has said Superheroes were not his doing. |
|
|
|
Post by Batflunkie on Jun 26, 2024 12:20:36 GMT -5
I often wonder what Timely would have been like if Kirby hadn't decided to come back and try to steer a sinking ship. Comics (or at least the long-underwear variety) might have ceased to exist DC would have continued with it's best sellers, Marvel might never have done them. Contrary to what Stan has said Superheroes were not his doing. I kind of get the feeling that DC at some point might have stagnated if not for Marvel. I'm not saying that Marvel/Timely created the Superhero or popularized them, but I think Marvel kind of gave Superheroes a broader appeal than just purely "kids wish fulfillment fantasy" stuff |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jun 26, 2024 14:06:25 GMT -5
You could do that for any DC comic before around 1977. Sorry people, I'm of the opinion that Kirby needed help with dialogue. I don't think Kirby dialogued the Challengers stories despite him saying at various points that he did everything by himself. The only part of the stories that sounds Kirby-like are the intros above the splash page titles. The rest is fairly generic. Later on, when he left Marvel and was doing the dialogue himself on the DC books, he wasn't shy about emulating Stan's style when it suited him. According to Mark Evanier, Dave Wood scripted the Challengers, starting with the second story and the first was likely Simon & Kirby, together, though with Jack doing most of it. Wood also scripted Kirby's Sky Masters comic strip, along with his brother Dick. They were unrelated to Wally Wood, who inked Kirby on the strips. Wally did ink Kirby on 5 issues of The Challengers of the Unknown. |
|
|
|
Post by commond on Jun 26, 2024 16:09:02 GMT -5
The myth that there were no comics with characterization, or meaningful stories before Marvel is hard to remove from the zeitgeist. There were. And as opposed to what Stan wrote in Origins, there is ample evidence that the early Silver Age books were not personal and he was still embarrassed to be in comics. Also, learning from Stan. Romita, Lee and others said Kirby did not read the printed comics, few of the creators in the 60s did. So where did Kirby get all that great Stan dialog to learn from. And if Kirby didn't read the books after he turned in the pencils with his dialog margin notes. How did he keep the characters and plotting consistent when he was plotting himself. Are we to think a suggested idea or asking for a particular villain was enough to make the characters what they were. If Stan was the driving force for the FF that Kirby tried to copy in the New Gods, where did he get all this from without reading the finished books. Or was it Kirby growing and plotting a book for so long (unprecedented for most artists) that let him grow in how he did books that resulted in the Fourth World? Nobody has said there was no characterization or meaningful stories before Marvel. You just won't find them in Challengers of the Unknown. Perhaps that's on Dave Wood. Just because someone says something in print doesn't make it an absolute. Kirby may have seldom read the stories once they were printed, but that doesn't mean he never saw a printed copy or was unaware of what was happening in the comic. I'm sure Jack was too busy drawing to sit around reading a bunch of work he'd done, but there are too many stories where we heard that Jack was upset at some change that had been made to his work to suggest that someone wasn't showing him the finished result. He also did corrections from time to time. If we accept it as gospel that Jack never looked at his work once it left his drawing table then doesn't that lend some credence to Stan Lee's argument that Jack was unaware of the contributions that Stan was making through the dialogue and wrong to think he was responsible for the entire book just because he left notes on the artwork? No-one said Stan was the driving force for Kirby creating the New Gods. The point I initially raised was that it doesn't seem like Kirby created the characters and their personalities solely on his own. I don't know who did. I just don't see any evidence that Jack was moving in that sort of direction with his previous work. Even if Stan contributed a fair amount, I'm sure he just swiped a bunch of ideas from other comics or media. The point I was making about Kirby's dialogue once he started doing the DC books, and even when he returned to Marvel, was that it could sounds very Stan Lee-ish at times. There is a lot of weird stuff in Kirby's 70s work. Not only in the dialogue, but in his letters pages. Maybe he was a quirkier guy than he appeared in interviews. Maybe he was trying to be hip for the younger generation. I don't know. If others don't agree that Jack was influenced by Stan''s hyperbolic style, I'll leave it at that. |
|
